Peer Victimization and Ethnic-Cultural Peer Victimization

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ISSN: 1136-1034 eISSN: 2254-4372 www.ehu.es/revista-psicodidactica © UPV/EHU DOI: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.7909 Peer Victimization and Ethnic-Cultural Peer Victimization: Self-Esteem and School Relations between Different Cultural Groups of Students in Andalusia, Spain Antonio J. Rodríguez-Hidalgo*, Rosario Ortega-Ruiz**, and Izabela Zych* *Universidad de Córdoba, Spain, **Universidad de Córdoba, Spain and University of Greenwich, United Kingdom

Abstract The objective of this research consisted of studying peer victimization (10 types) and ethnic-cultural peer victimization (10 types), together with their relation to self-esteem, social adjustment and number of friends at school, focusing especially on the cultural variable. A representative sample of pre- adolescent and adolescent students was recruited (mean age = 14.48 years) from schools in Andalusia (Spain). The sample consisted of 7,037 students from different cultures (80.1% majority, 2.7% gypsies, 6.1% first-generation immigrants and 4% second-generation immigrants). The participants filled in a self-informed questionnaire. Results show that multivictimization does not depend on the cultural group. Nevertheless, ethnic-cultural multivictimization is different in each group, more frequent in first- generation immigrants and gypsies. First-generation immigrants show lower levels of social adjustment if compared to other groups. Taking into account Tajfels’ theory, it can be inferred that first-generation immigrants and gypsies are the groups with the highest risk of social exclusion. The situation seems even more difficult in the former because of the lack of social support. Keywords: Victimization, discrimination, social exclusion, self-esteem, ethnic-cultural groups.

Resumen La finalidad de esta investigación es estudiar la victimización entre iguales (10 tipos) y la victimización étnico-cultural entre iguales (10 tipos), así como sus relaciones con la autoestima, ajuste social y número de amigos en la escuela, prestando especial atención a la variable cultural. Para ello una muestra represen- tativa de estudiantes preadolescentes y adolescentes (edad media = 14.48 años) de la región de Andalucía (España) compuesta por 7.037 estudiantes culturalmente diversos (80.1% mayoritario, 2.7% gitano, 6.1% inmigrantes de 1.ª generación y 4% inmigrantes de 2.ª generación) cumplimentó un cuestionario auto-in- forme. Los resultados revelan que el alumnado sufre multivictimización personal con independencia de su grupo cultural. Sin embargo la multivictimización étnico-cultural afecta de modo desigual en función del grupo cultural, más a estudiantes inmigrantes de 1.ª generación y a gitanos. El alumnado inmigrante de 1.ª generación manifiesta niveles significativamente inferiores de ajuste social que el resto de los grupos controlados. Estos hallazgos contemplados desde la teoría de Tajfel nos permiten inferir que tanto el alumnado inmigrante de 1.ª generación y como el gitano se encuentran en una situación de alto riesgo de exclu- sión, si bien la situación del primero puede ser más preocupante por falta de apoyo social. Palabras clave: Victimización, discriminación, exclusión social, autoestima, grupos étnico culturales.

Acknowledgments: The current work is a part of the research project Violencia Escolar y Juvenil (VIE- JUCO): los riesgos del cortejo violento, la agresión sexual y el cyberbullying from National I+D+I Plan of the Ministry of Science and Innovation (SPAIN); code: PSI2010-17246, granted to Rosario Ortega-Ruiz (IP) and the research team LAECOVI (Laboratorio de Estudios sobre Convivencia y Prevención de la Violencia)

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Antonio J. Rodríguez-Hidalgo, Departa- mento de Psicología, Universidad de Córdoba, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Av. San Alberto Magno, S/N, 14071 Córdoba, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 192 AND IZABELA ZYCH

Introduction many different studies conducted in Europe show no significant dif- Bullying at school is defined ferences among ethnic-cultural as repeated violent and intended groups taking into account victim- behavior in which the aggressor ization (Durkin et al., 2012; Fan- establishes a relationship of su- drem, Strohmeier, & Roland, 2009; periority by power and force (Ol- Monks, Ortega-Ruiz, & Rodriguez- weus, 1996). Bullying occurs in Hidalgo, 2008; Strohmeier, Kärnä, schools and in the way to school & Salmivalli, 2011). Some other (Mayer & Furlog, 2010) affecting studies, less numerous, found sig- physically and psychologically nificant differences among ethnic- the victims. Emotional impact on cultural groups while being a vic- victims is strong and when ag- tim of bullying (Wolke, Woods, gression is repeated, they feel vul- Stanford, & Schulz, 2001) and also nerable and defenseless. This phe- while acting as victim-aggressor nomenon is called victimization (Strohmeier, Spiel, & Gradinger, (Sanchez, Ortega, & Menesini, 2008). 2012). Some studies on peer victim- The number of studies about ization that included ethnic-cul- victimization which include the tural variable reported evidence on ethnic-cultural variable or focus a specific form of victimization: on ethnic-cultural victimization is racist name-calling or insult (Col- scarce. Most of them were con- lins, McAleavy, & Adamson, 2004; ducted in the USA and concluded Lloyd & Stead, 2001). Insults or that different ethnic-cultural groups racist name-calling described in are involved in different types of those studies are related to differ- victimization. Therefore, those ences in ethnic features and/or the studies on bullying show signifi- color of the skin between aggres- cant differences among ethnic-cul- sors and victims. This form of rac- tural groups when taking into ac- ist and/or xenophobic victimization count victims (Carlyle & Steinman, was found to be an important prob- 2007; Hanish & Guerra, 2000; lem suffered especially by students Sawyer, Bradshaw, & O’Brennan, from ethnic-cultural minorities and 2008; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & occasionally also from the major- Haynie, 2007). There are very few ity group. The study conducted by studies that found no significant Collins et al. (2004) concluded that differences among ethnic-cultural racist name-calling and insult was groups in the prevalence of vic- not only related to physical ethnic timization at schools in the USA differences such as the skin color (Seals & Young, 2003) or Canada but also to cultural characteristics (McKenney, Pepler, Craig, & Con- related to the religious beliefs, cus- nolly, 2006). On the other hand, toms or traditions. Recently, some

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 193 studies on victimization (general, three correlated types of ethnic- not only ethnic-cultural) include in cultural victimization: direct ver- their self-administered question- bal ethnic-cultural, direct relational naires the subtype of victimiza- ethnic-cultural and indirect relation by insult or pejorative names tional ethnic-cultural. This study based on ethnic differences or skin showed that pupils from ethnic- color (Strohmeier et al., 2011). Re- cultural minorities suffered signif- search conducted with pluricul- icantly more ethnic-cultural vic- tural participants from schools by timization in comparison to their Verkuyten and Thijs (2002, 2006) peers from the majority group, tak- in the Netherlands, by McKenney ing into account the three types. et al. (2006) in Canada, and by On the contrary, there were no sig- Monks et al. (2008) in Spain and nificant differences among groups England, show two different as- in any type of general victimiza- pects: a) insult or racist and/or xen- tion. Moreover, students who suf- ophobic name-calling are the most fered ethnic-cultural victimization common forms of ethnic-cultural (of any of the three types) not nec- victimization, nevertheless, other essarily manifested being victims forms should also be taken into ac- of homologous types of general count; and b) taking into account aggression. different forms of ethnic-cultural The relationship between vic- victimization, minorities are sig- timization and low self-esteem nificantly more affected than the was observed taking into account majorities. global self-esteem (Björkqvist Studies conducted by & Österman, 1999) and its dif- Verkuyten and Thijs (2002, 2006) ferent dimensions (Boulton & by McKenney et al. (2006) point Smith, 1994). Students who suf- out another form of ethnic-cultural fered frequent victimization are victimization: direct social exclu- more prone to have low self-es- sion with explicit allegation to rac- teem (Fox & Boulton, 2006; Ro- ist and/or xenophobic motivation land, 2002). (for example: You cannot play with There are also studies that us as you are from other country). found relationship between peer- A transnational study conducted by victimization and poor social ad- Monks et al. (2008) compared the justment at school (Cava, Buelga, prevalence of three different types Musitu, & Murgui, 2010). Victims of general victimization such as di- show low number of social rela- rect verbal (insults, name-calling tionships (Toblin, Schwartz, Gor- and threatening), direct relational man, & Abou-Ezzeddine, 2005). (direct social exclusion) and indi- They also tend to feel more lonely rect relational (rumor or lie spread- than their peers who do not suf- ing), and also the prevalence of fer victimization (Fox & Boul-

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 194 AND IZABELA ZYCH ton, 2006; Newman, Holden, self-esteem was a mediating vari- & Delville, 2005) together with able between ethnic discrimina- feelings of exclusion (Due et al., tion and global self-assessment 2005). (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2006). Analy- Recently, the relationship ses confirmed this hypothesis for among victimization, self-esteem each of the four groups. Consider- and social adjustment at school ing different types of ethnic-cul- is frequently studied. Neverthe- tural victimization, it was found less, the number of studies with that racist nomination influenced pluricultural samples, taking more global self-assessment than into account ethnic-cultural vic- social exclusion while playing. timization, is scarce. Those stud- Ethnic-cultural discrimina- ies were conducted mostly in the tion is negatively related to self- USA, Canada and Europe utiliz- esteem (Coker et al., 2009; Hunter, ing the concept of discrimination. Durkin, Heim, Howe, & Ber- A study conducted in Great Brit- gin, 2010; Seaton & Yip, 2009). ain on adolescents from different Ethnic-cultural discrimination is cultural minority groups by Cas- also negatively related to wellbe- sidy, O`Connor, Howe and Warden ing at school and establishment (2004) found negative relation- of satisfactory interpersonal rela- ship between perceived discrimi- tionships. Eccles, Wong and Peck nation and self-esteem. A series (2006) found significant relation- of important studies conducted by ship between discrimination, low Verkuyten and Thijs (2002, 2006) self-concept and low school per- in the Netherlands analyzed the formance in Afro-American stu- relationship between being a vic- dents. Also Dotterer, McHale and tim of ethnic-cultural discrimina- Crouter (2009) observed negative tion at school (racist name-calling correlation between discrimination, and racist social exclusion) and school self-esteem and relationship self-esteem in victims (differen- with school in adolescents from tiating personal self-esteem and minority groups. ethnic self-esteem). Verkuyten and Thijs (2002) studied prevalence of Methodological aspects ethnic victimization (racist name- calling and racist exclusion) on The current study utilizes a 2682 Dutch pre-adolescents from self-report which is considered the the ethnic-cultural majority group most adequate instrument while and also minority groups such as studying personal victimization, Turkish, North African and Suri- ethnic-cultural victimization, self- namese. Taking into account struc- esteem, social adjustment and tural identity models, those re- number of friends. Scientific litera- searchers suggested that ethnic ture review included above shows

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 195 that self-reports are the most com- the levels of personal victimiza- monly utilized instruments in re- tion, ethnic-cultural victimization, search into bullying and victimi- self-esteem, social adjustment and zation. Methodological aspects of number of friends in pupils from the previous studies were taken schools in Andalusia; 2) Compar- into account while defining ques- ing those levels taking into account tions on personal and ethnic-cul- the ethnic-cultural group of the stu- tural victimization included in the dents; and 3) Finding possible rela- questionnaire. Research conducted tionships among those variables. by Sawyer et al. (2008) shows that Based on Tajfel’s Social Iden- the number of detected victims is tity Theory (1982) it is expected higher when asked for different that pupils from minority ethnic- types of victimization rather than cultural groups show lower lev- including just one question on the els of social adjustment (Hypoth- issue. On the other hand, studies in esis 1). In line with the previous which different types of personal studies on personal and ethnic- and ethnic-cultural victimization cultural victimization conducted are compared show that there are in Andalusian schools in Spain participants who suffer from eth- (Monks et al., 2008) it is pre- nic-cultural victimization but not dicted that no significant differ- the homologous forms of personal ences among groups are going to victimization (Blaya, Debarbieux, be found in prevalence of personal del Rey, & Ortega, 2006; McK- victimization (Hypothesis 2) but enney et al., 2006; Monks et al., significant differences are going 2008; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2006). to be found in prevalence of eth- Considering all those issues and nic-cultural victimization (Hy- with the objective of collecting the pothesis 3). Taking into account most precise and exhaustive in- previous research, significant cor- formation on the topic, the cur- relations are expected to be found rent self-report studies at the same among personal victimization, eth- time ten possible types of personal nic-cultural victimization, self- and also ten types of ethnic-cul- esteem, social adjustment and tural victimization. The term mul- number of friends (Hypothesis 4). tivictimization (Blaya et al., 2006) is utilized when participants suffer different forms of victimization at Method the same time. Participants Hypotheses and Objectives A total number of 7,037 ado- The objectives of the current lescents and pre-adolescents partic- study consisted of: 1) Describing ipated in the study (1,278 from the

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 196 AND IZABELA ZYCH last cycle of Primary Education, grants” and 7% did not give their 4,145 from Compulsory Secondary cultural group. The distribution of Education and 1614 Post-Compul- the participants by gender and age sory Schooling —Bachillerato—). can be seen in Table 1. Girls (48.6%) and boys (51.1%) The population for the cur- from 38 schools in 8 provinces rent study consisted of pupils from and 33 towns of Andalusia (Span- the last cycle of Primary Educa- ish region) filled in the survey. tion (5th and 6th), Compulsory 661 of the participants were from Secondary Education (1st, 2nd, Almería (3 schools), 847 from 3rd and 4th) and Post-Compulsory Cadiz (6 schools), 840 from Cór- Schooling (Bachillerato) (1st and doba (4 schools), 747 from Gra- 2nd) from Andalusia. Stratified nada (6 schools), 934 from Huelva random sampling with one-step (4 schools), 610 from Jaen (3 conglomerates was conducted. schools), 1,082 from Málaga (6 Schools were considered units for schools) and 1316 from Sevilla (6 sampling and pupils units for anal- schools).The mean age of the par- yses. Twenty four stratums were ticipants was of 14.48 (SD = 2.30). obtained by crossing two varia- 80.1% of all the students de- bles: province and school level (8 fined themselves as “the majority X 3). Schools were randomly se- group”, 2.7% as “gypsies”, 6.1% lected. Sampling error is estimated as “first-generation immigrants”, in +1.2% and the confidence level 4% as “second-generation immi- is of 95.44%.

Table 1 Distribution of the Participants by Gender and Age

Age

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Total

Boys 124 243 342 399 453 479 468 403 198 64 14 0 3,187 Girls 107 304 348 393 386 446 482 460 227 44 15 1 3,213

Total 231 547 690 792 839 925 950 863 425 108 29 1 6,400

2 Note. 637 of the participants did not report their exact age. Χ (11) = 25,26, p = .008.

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 197

Instruments dation (α = .79) and for the current sample (α = .72). The first part of the question- — Number of friends: Partici- naire consisted of items on demo- pants answered the item “How graphic data such as age, gender many good friends do you have and cultural group. Then, different at school?” choosing one of variables of the study were meas- the following options: “none”, ured as follows: “one”, “between 2 and 5” and “6 or more”. — Self-esteem: Rosenberg Self- — Personal victimization: Fre- Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, quency of general victimization 1979) consists of 10 questions was measured by the item “How with a 4-point Likert response many times have you felt intim- scale ranging from 2 “totally idated, rejected or mistreated by disagree” to 4 “totally agree” one of your classmates in the (Vázquez, Jiménez, & Vázquez, past three weeks”, with the re- 2004). The reliability of the sponse options: “never”, “oc- scale for the current sample was casionally” and “frequently (at good (α = .78). least once a week)”. The multi- — Social adjustment: A subscale victimization was measured as of the “Questionnaire on Con- the total number of its reported vivencia, Conflicts and School types: “physical aggression Violence” (Ortega, Del Rey, & (punching, kicking or pushing)”, Mora-Merchán, 2008), which “stealing from me”, “calling me consisted of the following ques- names”, “lying about me and tions: “Students in my class get saying things about me behind along”, “My classmates are in- my backs”, “threatening me”, “rejecting me, isolating me or terested in me”, “I like work- not playing with me”, “braking in a group”, “My classmates ing my things”, “by mobile (text help me when I need it”, “I feel messages, calls or videos to I have friends”, “I express and tease me)”, “by the Internet (e- defend my opinion without hurt- mail, chat, etc.)” or “other”. ing other people”, “I join activi- — Ethnic-cultural victimization: ties with other people” and “I Frequency and ethnic-cultural help my classmates in what they multivictimization were meas- need”. Participants responded to ured by items similar to those each question on a 5-point Lik- designed to measure personal ert scale ranging from 1 (never) victimization adding “because to 4 (always). The scale shows of the color of your skin, reli- acceptable reliability in Ortega, gion, culture or being from a Del Rey & Sánchez (2011) vali- different country”.

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 198 AND IZABELA ZYCH

Procedure studied variables in different groups. Self-esteem and Number Permits were solicited and ob- of friends are the same for all the tained from the eight Provincial groups whereas there are signifi- Offices of the Ministry of Educa- cant differences in Social adjust- tion and all of the selected schools. ment. Each pupil filled in the question- Games-Howell pairwise com- naire during their regular class parisons showed that the only sig- hours in their classrooms, super- nificant difference between groups vised by the researchers. The sur- is found in Social adjustment be- vey was anonymous, individual tween majority and first-genera- and voluntary. tion immigrants which, in case of the latter is worse than in case of the former, with rather small effect Results size (d = .25).

Self-esteem, Social adjustment Frequencies of victimization and number of friends in different groups Tables 3 and 4 show frequencies of personal and ethnic-cul- Table 2 shows means and tural victimization for each cultural standard deviations for the three group, respectively.

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations in Self-Esteem, Social Adjustment and Number of Friends

Majority Gypsies First- Second- No Total generation generation answer immigrants immigrants F n = 5639 n = 189 n = 430 n = 173 n = 496 n = 7037 M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) 31.87 31.72 31.65 31.59 31.38 31.80 Self-esteem 2.09* (4.28) (3.95) (4.08) (4.31) (3.98) (4.24) Social 23.47 22.48 22.32 23.20 23.24 23.34 7.07* adjustment (4.58) (5.73) (4.82) (4.71) (4.24) (4.62) Number 2.55 2.53 2.47 2.56 2.52 2.54 1.28* of friends (.63) (.77) (.73) (.63) (.62) (.64)

* p < .01. Note. Levene’s statistic showed unequal variances among groups. Thus, Welch’s ANOVA was used for the comparison.

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 199

Table 3 Frequencies of General Victimization for Each Cultural Group

Frequency of personal victimization

Never Occasionally Frequently Majority 77.6% 17.5% 5.0% Gypsies 78.6% 14.9% 6.5% First-generation immigrants 70.2% 24.4% 6.1% Second-generation immigrants 73.0% 19.8% 7.3% No answer 75.5% 20.4% 5.1% Total 76.9% 18.1% 5.1%

Table 4 Frequencies of Ethnic-Cultural Victimization for Each Cultural Group

Frequency of ethnic-cultural victimization

Never Occasionally Frequently Majority 91.9% 6.6% 1.5% Gypsies 79.0% 17.0% 4.0% First-generation immigrants 68.6% 26.3% 5.1% Second-generation immigrants 80.9% 16.2% 2.9% No answer 89.7% 7.4% 2.9% Total 89.6% 8.5%1.9%

There are significant differ- differences among groups in eth- 2 ences among groups [χ (8) = 18.18, nic-cultural victimization are sta- 2 p < .05]. Adjusted standardized re- tistically significant [χ (8) = 264.52, siduals show significantly higher p < .01] (see Table 4). “Ma- frequency of “never” answer in jority” has higher percentage of “majority” group in comparison “never” answer if compared to to the rest (ASR = 2.8) whereas the rest (ASR = 12.8), “gypsies” first-generation immigrants show have higher percentage of “occa- higher percentage of “occasional” sional” (ASR = 4.1) and “frequent” personal victimization in compari- (ASR = 2) victimization, first-gen- son to the rest (ASR = 3.2). Also, eration immigrants have

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 200 AND IZABELA ZYCH

Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations in the Studied Variables for Different Frequencies of Personal and Ethnic-Cultural Victimization

Frequency of personal victimization

Never Occasionally Frequently n = 4752 n = 1119 n = 313 F M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Self-esteem 32.41 (4.06) 30.51 (4.46) 28.97 (5.08) 107.28* Social adjustment 24.10 (4.39) 21.84 (4.61) 18.44 (5.99) 228.36* Number of friends 2.59 (.61) 2.45 (.70) 2.08 (.93) 41.14* Frequency of ethnic-cultural victimization

Never Occasionally Frequently n = 5889 n = 561 n = 125 F M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Self-esteem 31.94 (4.30) 30.97 (4.01) 30.11 (4.95) 17.32* Social adjustment 23.59 (4.58) 21.56 (4.89) 20.66 (6.48) 55.53* Number of friends 2.55 (.64) 2.48 (.74) 2.31 (.90) 4.40*

* p < .01.

higher percentages of “occasional” differences among groups were (ASR = 13.1) and “frequent” statistically significant. (ASR = 4.7) victimization and Sec- Games-Howell post-hoc pair- ond generation immigrants have wise comparisons for frequency of higher percentage of “occasional” personal victimization showed that (ASR = 4.6) victimization. all the differences are statistically Table 5 shows means and significant (ps < .01). Small effect standard deviations in Self-esteem, sizes were found in self-esteem be- Social adjustment and Number of tween “occasionally” - “frequently” friends for different frequencies of (d = .32) and in the number of personal and ethnic-cultural vic- friends between “never” - “occa- timization. Levene’s test showed sionally” (d = .21), medium effect unequal variances (ps < .05). sizes were found in self-esteem Therefore, Welch’s ANOVA and between “never” - “occasionally” post-hoc Games-Howell tests were (d = .45) in social adjustment be- performed to check whether the tween “never” - “occasionally”

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 201

(d = .50) and “occasionally”- 6.3% did suffer one, 1.3% two, “frequently” (d = .64), and in .6% three, .4%, four, .3% five, .1 the number of friends between six, seven, eight or nine and 0% “never”-“frequently” (d = .65) ten types of victimization. Differ- and “occasionally” - “frequently” ences in means for different cul- (d = .45). Large effect sizes were tural/ethnic groups can be seen in found in self-esteem between table 6. “never”-“frequently” (d = .75) Games-Howell post hoc and in social adjustment between comparisons showed signifi- “never”-“frequently” (d = 1.08). cant differences in ethnic-cultural On the other hand, Games-Howell multivictimization between “first- post-hoc pairwise comparisons for generation immigrants” and “sec- frequency of ethnic-cultural vic- ond generation immigrants” with timization showed significant dif- rather small effect size (d = .32); ferences in Self-esteem between “first-generation immigrants” and “never”-“occasionally” with a “no answer” also with rather small small effect size (d = .23); “never”- effect size (d = .38). “Majority” “frequently” also with rather suffered significantly less victimi- small effect size (d = .39); So- zation than the “gypsies” with a cial adjustment between “never”- small effect size (d = .27), less than “occasionally” with small-medium “first generation immigrants” with effect size (d = .43); “never”- a medium effect size (d = .46) and “frequently” with a medium ef- less then “second generation im- fect size (d = .52); and in Number migrants” with a small effect size of friends between “never”- (d = .20). “frequently” with a small effect Table 7 shows percentages of size (d = .31) (ps < .01). The rest different types of personal and eth- of the differences between groups nic-cultural victimization among for frequency of ethnic-cultural the cultural groups. Taking into victimization were non-significant account percentages of students (p > .05). who reported at least one type of victimization, personal victimiza- Types and multivictimization tion is more frequent than ethnic- cultural victimization (25.8% vs. Results show that 70.7% of the 8.3%, χ2 = 928.7, p < .01). There participants did not suffer personal are significant differences in per- victimization, 14.2% suffered one, sonal victimization in the item re- 7.2% two, 4% three, 2% four, .1% porting “stealing from me” with five .5% six, .2% seven or eight first-generation immigrants expe- and 0% nine or ten types of gen- riencing most and majority and no eral victimization. 90.9% did not answer groups experiencing less suffer ethnic-cultural victimization, this type of victimization. Also the

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 202 AND IZABELA ZYCH item “other” personal victimization among groups in all the items of is significantly different among ethnic/cultural victimization. First- groups with second-generation im- generation immigrants and gypsies migrant experiencing it most and are the most ethnic/cultural victim- majority less. On the other hand, ized groups and majority is the less there are significant differences victimized in most of the items.

Table 6 Mean Number of Types of Personal and Ethnic-Cultural Victimization in Different Cultural Groups

Personal Ethnic-cultural victimization victimization Fd M M (SD) (SD) Majority (5639) .59 (1.13) .12 (.56) 1,042.98* .53 Gypsies (189) .63 (1.27) .35 (1.05) 11.63* .24 First-generation immigrants (430) .71 (1.14) .49 (1.00) 21.53* .21 Second-generation immigrants (289) .71 (1.14) .23 (.55) 51.18* .54 No answer (496) .58 (.99) .17 (.67) 84.52* .49 Total (7037) .60 (1.13) .16 (.63) 1,187.84* .48 F 2.04 18.20*

* p < .01. Note. Levene’s statistic showed unequal variances in ethnic-cultural victimization and equal variances in personal victimization. Thus, Welch’s ANOVA was used in the former.

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 203 Other % 1.9% 1% 2.0% 4% 2.0% .6% 4.1% By the Internet By mobile Braking my things me Rejecting me % of “yes” answers Threatening Type of personal victimization Type Lying Lying about me Victimization among the Cultural Groups Victimization % of “yes” answers Calling me names Type of ethnic-cultural victimization Type Stealing from me 6.76 15.14* 4.28 6.74 2.67 4.80 2.66 2.70 2.81 17.50* 40.58* 33.62* 207.87* 81.91* 22.92* 54.56* 27.45* 24.17* 23.87* 27.34* Physical aggression < .01. p (4) (4) 2 2 Table 7 Table of Personal and Ethnic-Cultural Types of Different Percentages * Second-generation immigrantsNo answer 6.6%Total 6.6%χ 3.4% 5.7% 18.5% 23.0% 14.9% 16.8% 6.1% 4.2% 5.3%answerNo 2.9% 6.2% 7.4% Total 18.2% 1.9%χ 2.0% 15.5% .9% .4% 4.1% 2.3% 1 4.4% 3.1% 1.3% 2.2% 1.7% 1.8% 1.0% 5.0% 1.1% 1.5% 2.1% 5.6% 1.2% 1.7% 2.7% 1.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% .7% .8% .2% .3% .2% .5% .5% MajorityGypsiesFirst-generation immigrants 9.2% 5.9% 6.4% 20.2% 9.7%Majority 17.9% 3.0%GypsiesFirst-generation immigrants 5.6% 18.2% 4.5% 17.4% 14.6% 7.8% 9.7% 5.1% 4.0% 2.8% 6.3% 2.7% 6.1% .3% 1.4% 19.7% 6.9% 4.5% 1.8% 3. 9.9% .8% 2.8% .9% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 1.4% 13.4% 2.3% 2.1% 2.1% 5.1% 3.2% 1.1% .9% 2.1% 2.7% 2.5% .9% .8% 3.8% .6% 2.1 2.5% .2% 1.9% .4% 1.3% .4% 1.3% Second-generation immigrantsSecond-generation .4% 2.4% 12.5% 3.1% .8% 1.6% 0.0% .4% .

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 204 AND IZABELA ZYCH

Relationship between personal, only between Personal Multivic- ethnic-cultural victimization and timization and Frequency of per- the rest of the studied variables sonal victimization, Personal Mul- tivictimization and Ethnic-Cultural Table 8 shows relationships Multivictimization and Frequency among all the studied variables. of ethnic-cultural victimization and The frequencies and varieties of Ethnic-cultural multivictimization. both types of victimization were The rest of the correlations could positively correlated. On the con- be considered rather small. trary, frequencies and varieties of victimization were negatively correlated with Number of friends, So- Discussion cial adjustment and Self-Esteem variables that showed positive cor- It was expected that students relations with each other. All the from ethnic-cultural minority correlations were statistically sig- groups would show lower levels nificant. Taking into account the of social adjustment in compari- criteria suggested by Cohen (1988), son to their peers from the major- strong correlation were found ity group. The results show that

Table 8 Relationships among all the Studied Variables

Multi- Frequency Multi- Frequency Number of Social Self victimization ethnic- victimization personal friends adjustment esteem personal cultural ethnic-cultural

Frequency personal 1

Multivictimization Personal .70* 1

Frequency ethnic-cultural .28* .25* 1

Multivictimization Ethnic-cultural .30* .96* .52* 1

Number of Friends –.18* –.15* –.06* –.08* 1

Social Adjustment –.30* –.24* –.14* –.10* .31* 1

Self Esteem –.21* –.20* –.08* –.10* .18* .29* 1

* p < .01.

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 205 the hypothesis is supported only to be in agreement with some Eu- for first-generation immigrants, al- ropean studies form the last dec- though only with a small effect ade (Strohmeier et al., 2011; Stro- size. Taking into account Tajfel’s hmeier et al., 2008; Wolke et al., Social Identity Theory (1982) this 2001) and also with most of the result could be interpreted as the studies conducted in the USA (Car- existence of certain cultural con- lyle & Steinman, 2007; Hanish & frontation among pupils born in Guerra, 2000; Sawyer et al., 2008; Spain and first-generation immi- Spriggs et al., 2007). Those studies grants. Moreover, this confronta- show that minorities suffer more tion would reinforce prejudices personal victimization in compari- and therefore, pupils would protect son to the majority group. Never- their ingroup rejecting at the same theless, among the ten types of per- time the outgroup. In the studied sonal victimization studied in the context, the number of first-gener- current research, only two were dif- ation immigrants is scarce and di- ferent between groups. These find- verse; therefore, they are the group ings are in agreement with other with the highest risk of social mal- recent European studies (Fandrem adjustment. Nevertheless, there is et al., 2009; Monks et al., 2008) no significant difference among and also with some research form groups in number of friends or the USA (McKenney et al., 2006; self-esteem. Thus, whether the cul- Seals & Young, 2003). Therefore, tural group is stable with respect to the current research shows more school or local context (majority evidence which support the second group and gypsies are more sable hypothesis: there are no significant in Spain in comparison to the first- differences among groups in per- and second-generation immigrants sonal victimization. who are less stable) does not seem As stated in the hypothesis 3, to influence self-assessment and ethnic-cultural victimization is dif- the number of friends. ferent for different groups. The re- Personal multivictimization is sults show that this hypothesis is suffered by students from all eth- supported for each of the ten stud- nic-cultural groups. Nevertheless, ied types of ethnic-cultural victim- there are some differences among ization. Those types of victimiza- groups. Taking into account the tion affect more first-generation ten different types of personal vic- immigrants and gypsies in com- timization, significant differences parison to second-generation im- were found only in the item “steal- migrant and majority groups. Tak- ing from me” with higher percent- ing into account studies conducted ages in case of the first-generation by Hanish and Guerra (2000) immigrants in comparison to the based on Tajfel’s theory (1982), majority group. These results seem it seems that when an ethnic-cul-

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 206 AND IZABELA ZYCH tural group see itself as a minority tural communities which cannot be in a given context, this minority is considered intercultural. exposed to victimization. There- As expected, second-genera- fore, it seems that: 1) First-gener- tion immigrants suffer less ethnic- ation immigrants are at the highest cultural victimization in compari- risk for suffering difficulties in so- son to first-generation immigrants. cial-affective development as they Comparison between second- are exposed to multiple forms of generation immigrants and gyp- ethnic-cultural victimization; this sies yields interesting results as group is diverse and have difficul- the latter suffer more ethnic-cul- ties finding peers who share their tural victimization than the former, identities at school and other con- even though gypsies have been co- texts; 2) Gypsies are also at risk existing with the majority group because of frequent ethnic-cultural in Spain throughout centuries. It victimization, although with more is possible that second-genera- possibilities of finding peers with tion immigrants have assimilated their cultural identity. The situa- and showed more cultural identity tion of first-generation immigrants characteristics from the receiving is preoccupying, also taking into society in comparison to the first- account that their levels of social generation immigrants and gypsies. adjustment are significantly lower Second-generation immigrants in in comparison to their peers from Andalusia, South of Spain, are cul- the majority group. The situation turally diverse and there are very of gypsies seems better than the few separated cultural communi- former as their self-esteem, social ties. adjustment and number of friends The results support the fourth are similar to those from the ma- hypothesis according to which all jority group and second-generation the variables are significantly cor- immigrants. Nevertheless, taking related. Negative relationship be- into account the theory of Hanish tween personal victimization and and Guerra (2000), the pressure self-esteem was also found in stud- suffered by means of ethnic-cul- ies conducted in other countries tural victimization at school and (Fox & Boulton, 2006; Roland, the possibility of finding peers with 2002). Personal victimization is the same identity could lead to the also negatively related to social formation of minority groups sep- adjustment and number of friends arated from the majority. The for- at school, which has also been de- mation of those groups, together scribed in scientific literature with the ethnic-cultural prejudices where victims are found to have and different forms of aggression difficulties while establishing sat- at school could lead to socializa- isfactory relationships with peers, tion and development of multicul- little self-control, feeling excluded

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 207 and lonely (Cava et al., 2010; Due Strong positive relationship et al., 2005; Fox & Boulton, 2006; found between personal and eth- Toblin et al., 2005). nic-cultural multivictimization, Negative relationship was together with other relationships, found between ethnic-cultural vic- lead to the conclusion that victimi- timization and self-esteem. Some zation and discrimination suffered recent studies have also found sim- by children and adolescents from ilar results, although the terms uti- minority groups should be con- lized were discrimination (Coker sidered from a complex theoreti- et al., 2009; Hunter et al., 2010; cal perspective which has not yet Seaton & Yip, 2009). On the other been proposed. The current study hand, ethnic-cultural victimization shows important results on those was also related to social adjust- issues, although with limitations ment and number of friends. The always present while using self- two relationships are in agreement reports. Models suggested at the with studies conducted by Eccles et past are focused mostly on per- al.(2006) and Dotterer et al. (2009) sonal or general victimization or who pointed out that ethnic-cul- social discrimination. Taking into tural discrimination is negatively account the current study, we aim related to the wellbeing and feel- to develop a future line of research ing related to peers at school. The to support new theoretical models current study shows that: 1) ethnic- utilizing also observational meth- cultural peer victimization at school ods. These models could integrate is negatively related to self-esteem personal and ethnic-cultural vic- and also to social adjustment; and timization, together with other re- 2) frequent ethnic-cultural victims lated variables such as self-esteem, have less friends in comparison to social adjustment or number of the non-victimized peers. friends.

References

Björkqvist, K., & Österman, K. (1999). Blaya, C., Debarbieux, E., del Rey, R., Finland. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, & Ortega, R. (2006). Clima y vio- J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Cata- lencia escolar. Un estudio compara- lano y P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of tivo entre España y Francia. Revista school bullying. A cross-national de Educación, 339, 293-315. perspective (pp. 56-67). London: Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Routledge. Bully/victim problems among mid-

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 208 AND IZABELA ZYCH

dle school children: Stability, self- Applied Developmental Science, 13, perceived competence, and peer 61-73. acceptance. British Journal of De- Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J., Di- velopmental Psychology, 12, 315- derichsen, F., Gabhain, S. N., Sch- 329. deit, P., ... The Health Behaviour Carlyle, K., & Steinman, K. (2007). De- in School-Aged Children Bullying mographic differences in the preva- Working Group (2005). Bullying lence, co-occurrence, and correlates and symptoms among school-aged of adolescent bullying at school. children: international comparative The Journal of School Health, 77, cross sectional study in 28 coun- 623-629. tries. European Journal of Public Cassidy, C., O`Connor, R. C., Howe, Health, 15, 128-132. C., & Warden, D. (2004). Perceived Durkin, K., Hunter, S., Levin, K. A., discrimination and psychological Bergin, D., Heim, D., & Howe, C. distress: The role of personal and (2012). Discriminatory peer aggres- ethnic self-esteem. Journal of Coun- sion among children as a function seling Psychology, 51, 329-339. of minority status and group pro- Cava, M. J., Buelga, S., Musitu, G., & portion in school context. European Murgui, S. (2010). Violencia esco- Journal of Social Psychology, 42, lar entre adolescentes y sus impli- 243-251. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.870 caciones en el ajuste psicosocial: un Eccles, J. S., Wong, C. A., & Peck, S. estudio longitudinal. Revista de Psi- C. (2006). Ethnicity as a social con- codidáctica, 15, 21-34. text for the development of African- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power American adolescents. Journal of analysis for the behavioral sciences School Psychology, 44, 407-426. (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Erl- baum. Fandrem, H., Strohmeier, D., & Ro- Coker, T. R., Elliott, M. N., Kanouse, land, E. (2009). Bullying and vic- D. E., Grunbaum, J. A., Schwebel, timization among native and im- D. C., Gilliland, M. J., ... Schus- migrant adolescents in Norway ter, M. A. (2009). Perceived racial/ the role of proactive and reactive ethnic discrimination among fifth- aggressiveness. Journal of Early grade students and its association Adolescence, 29, 898-923. doi: with mental health. American Jour- 10.1177/0272431609332935 nal of Public Health, 99, 878-884. Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2006). doi: 10.2105/ajph.2008.144329 Longitudinal associations between Collins, K., McAleavy, G., & Adam- submissive/nonassertive social be- son, G. (2004). Bullying in schools: havior and different types of peer a Northern Ireland study. Educa- victimization. Violence and Victims, tional Research, 46, 55-71. 21, 383-399. Dotterer, A. M., McHale, S. M., & Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). Crouter, A. C. (2009). Sociocul- The roles of ethnicity and school tural factors and school engagement context in predicting children`s vic- among African American youth: the timization by peers. American Jour- roles of racial discrimination, racial nal of Community Psychology, 28, socialization, and ethnic identity. 201-223.

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 PEER VICTIMIZATION AND ETHNIC-CULTURAL PEER VICTIMIZATION: SELF-ESTEEM AND SCHOOL RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURAL... 209

Hunter, S. C., Durkin, K., Heim, D., convivencia escolar y juvenil. Ci- Howe, C., & Bergin, D. (2010). berconducta y relaciones en la Red: Psychosocial mediators and mod- Ciberconvivencia. Madrid: Obser- erators of the effect of peer-victim- vatorio Estatal de la Convivencia ization upon depressive symptoma- Escolar. Internal report. tology. Journal of Child Psychology Roland, E. (2002). Aggression, depres- and Psychiatry, 51, 1141-1149. doi: sion, and bullying others. Aggres- 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02253.x sive Behavior, 28, 198-206. Lloyd, G., & Stead, J. (2001). “The Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the boys and girls not calling me names self. New York: Basic Books. and the teachers to belive me” Sánchez, V., Ortega, R., & Menesini, E. Name calling and the experiences (2012). Emotional competence and of travellers in school. Children y bullying. Anales de Psicologia, 28, Society, 15, 361-364. 71-82. Mayer, M. J., & Furlog, M. J. (2010). Sawyer, A. L., Bradshaw, C. P., & How safe are our schools? Educa- O’Brennan, L. M. (2008). Examin- tional Researcher, 39, 16-26. ing ethnic, gender, and developmen- McKenney, K. S., Pepler, D., Craig, W., tal differences in the way children & Connolly, J. (2006). Peer victimi- report being a victim of “bullying” zation and psychosocial adjustment: on self-report measures. Journal of The experiences of Canadian immi- Adolescent Health, 43, 106-114. grant youth. Electronic Journal of Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying Research in Educational Psychol- and victimization: prevalence and ogy, 9(4), 239-264. relationship to gender, grade level, Monks, C., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Rod- ethnicity, self-esteem, and depres- riguez-Hidalgo, A. J. (2008). Peer victimization in multicultural sion. Adolescence, 38, 735-747. schools in Spain and England. Eu- Seaton, E., & Yip, T. (2009). School ropean Journal of Developmen- and neighborhood contexts, percep- tal Psychology, 5, 507-535. doi: tions of racial discrimination, and 10.1080/17405620701307316 psychological well-being among af- Newman, M. L., Holden, G. W., & rican american adolescents. Jour- Delville, Y. (2005). Isolation and nal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, stress of being bullied. Journal of 153-163. Adolescence, 28, 343-357. Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim prob- T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Ado- lems in school. Prospecs, 26, 331- lescent bullying involvemente and 359. perceived family, peer and school Ortega, R., Del Rey, R., & Mora-Mer- relations: commonalities and differ- chán, J. A. (2008). Cuestiona- ences across race/ethnicity. Journal rio sobre Convivencia, Conflic- of Adolescent Health, 41, 283-293. tos y Violencia Escolar. Retrieved Strohmeier, D., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, from http://www.uco.es/laecovi/ C. (2011). Intrapersonal and inter- cuestionarios.php personal risk factors for peer vic- Ortega, R., Del Rey, R., & Sánchez, V. timization in immigrant youth in (2011). Nuevas dimensiones de la Finland. Developmental Psychol-

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210 ANTONIO J. RODRÍGUEZ-HIDALGO, ROSARIO ORTEGA-RUIZ, 210 AND IZABELA ZYCH

ogy, 47, 248-258. doi: 10.1037/ lidez en población clínica española. a0020785 Apuntes de Psicología, 22, 247-255. Strohmeier, D., Spiel, C., & Gradinger, Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Rac- P. (2008). Social relationships in ist victimization among children in multicultural schools: Bullying and The Netherlands: the effect of eth- victimization. European Journal of nic group and school. Ethnic and Developmental Psychology, 5, 262- Racial Studies, 25, 310-331. doi: 285. 10.1080/01419870120109502 Tajfel, H. (1982). Social-psychol- Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2006). Eth- ogy of inter-group relations. An- nic discrimination and global self- nual Review of Psychology, 33, worth in early adolescents: The me- 1-39. doi: 10.1146/annurev. diating role of ethnic self-esteem. ps.33.020182.000245 International Journal of Behavio- Toblin, R. L., Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. ral Development, 30, 107-116. doi: H., & Abou-Ezzeddine, T. (2005). 10.1177/0165025406063573 Social-cognitive and behavioral at- Wolke, D., Woods, S., Stanford, K., tributes of aggressive victims of & Schulz, H. (2001). Bullying and bullying. Journal of Applied Devel- victimization of primary school opmental Psychology, 26, 329-346. children in England and Germany: Vázquez, A. J., Jiménez, R., & Váz- Prevalence and school factors. Brit- quez, R. (2004). Escala de autoes- ish Journal of Psychology, 92, 673- tima de Rosenberg: fiabilidad y va- 696.

Antonio J. Rodríguez-Hidalgo is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychol- ogy at the University of Córdoba (Spain) and a researcher at the LAECOVI team. He conducts research related to violence at school and among youth, discrimination and cultural diversity

Rosario Ortega-Ruiz is a full Professor in the Department of Psychology, Uni- versity of Cordoba (Spain) and Visiting Professor at University of Greenwich (United Kingdom) and the team leader of LAECOVI with different national and international projects. Her principal research lines are related to convivencia and prevention of violence. She is the Vice-President of the International Observatory of Violence in the School Environment.

Izabela Zych is a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Córdoba (Spain) and a member of LAECOVI research team. Her research lines focus on quality criteria in science and education, convivencia and prevention of violence.

Received date: 23-03-2013 Review date: 05-06-2013 Accepted date: 17-07-2013

Revista de Psicodidáctica, 2014, 19(1), 191-210